The author provides a clear written article about the "circling of the wagons" of the military-industrial hawks around the issue of automatic cuts to their welfare programs. They, as usual, are pushing two themes: cuts will threaten US security and jobs.
The only problem I have with the article is his suggestion that there is a big difference between Republican and Democrats on this issue in Congress.
The Act was designed to spur both parties to compromise, since Republicans have generally been adamantly opposed to cuts in the defense budget, while Democrats have no less vehemently tried to protect favored social, educational, and health programs from the budget axe.Democrats try to make a big impression about their support of the latter issues, but these are mostly poses for public consumption. For example, here in Washington state the majority of Comgressmembers are Democrats, but when push comes to shove, you can be sure that most will not go against the interests of Boeing Corporation, a major military contractor.
Although not justified on a cost effective basis, the wide dispersion of military production facilities across the country was an intentional strategy of these "defense" contractors in order to insure political support. You see, jobs in these industries are some of the highest paying; and most jobs, for obvious reasons, are not outsourced to cheap labor countries.